CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, bijapur, thereby challenging order dated 31. 7. 1996 in No. WCA:sr:81 of 1995 passed by the Workmen's Compensation commissioner, Bijapur. In passing the said order, the Workmen's Compensation commissioner while allowing the claim made by the respondents had awarded a sum of Rs. 55,251 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Government advocate, Mr. Ashok Mensinkai, had taken me through the impugned order under challenge. He had also taken me through the facts of the case. While urging the grounds made out in the instant appeal, it was argued by him that the Workmen's compensation Commissioner (hereinforth in brief referred to for convenience as 'the wcc') had totally erred in awarding compensation without there being evidence as to at what point of time the alleged accident had taken place. According to him, the alleged accident resulting in the death of one Yellanagouda, the husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not at all taken place during the course of employment and inasmuch as admittedly the accident had taken place while the deceased was on his way to his residence. In support of his argument, he had also cited before me a reported decision of the Supreme Court in mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak, 1969 ACJ 422 (SC ).

( 3 ) THEREFORE, Mr. Ashok Mensinkai submitted that the impugned award passed by the WCC is liable to be set aside in allowing the instant appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent no. 3 having been served with notice had remained absent before court), Mr. Naga-raj, argued at the outset that the appellant having filed the objection statement before the WCC did not challenge the evidence adduced by the claimants and furthermore he did not adduce his side of the evidence to oppose the claim. To counter the argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the accident that had taken place during the course of employment, Mr. Nagaraj had placed reliance on the reported decision of the High Court of judicature, Andhra Pradesh, in the case of shree Krishna Rice and Flour Mills, Samal-kot v. Challapalli Chittemma, 1961 LLJ 260. He had also pointed out that in the said decision, it was held that the expression 'employment' as defined in section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is wider than the actual place of work or duty where the workman had to discharge. In the said decision the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had held that even when the worker was to proceed from the place of employment to his residence and that if the accident was to take place then the same had to be construed in law that the accident had taken place arising out of and during the course of employment.

( 5 ) THEREFORE, Mr. Nagaraj submitted that the instant appeal does not merit any consideration. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed in confirmation of the order passed by the WCC.

( 6 ) INCIDENTALLY, Mr. Nagaraj had also pointed out that the instant appeal had been filed with a long delay of 490 days.

( 7 ) HAVING heard both the learned counsel for the contending parties before me, a sole point that arises for my consideration is whether the alleged accident in which yellanagouda, the husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, died was during the course of employment or not?

( 8 ) MY answer to the above point is in the affirmative, for the courts have time and again held that, even if any injury or death were to take place during the course of journey from the residence to the place of employment and so also, from the place of his employment to his place of residence, it has to be construed in law as the accident has taken place during the course of employment. That the courts had consistently held so by applying the principle of the notional extension of time of employ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document